If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

Phoronix: Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

Mark Shuttleworth has apologized on the behalf of his legal team for one of his employees asserting their trademark rights over a web-site that was critical of Ubuntu's privacy within Unity. At the same time he also apologized over his earlier "Open Source Tea Party" comments for anti-Mir users...

Leave a comment:

First, Canonical?s trademark ?policy? does not and cannot trump the First Amendment. Imagine the impact on free speech if you needed a ?grant of permission? from BP, Coca-Cola Amatil, or EFF before using one of their trademarks as part of speech criticizing their conduct. Fortunately, we don?t live in such a world. (...)
Second, Canonical is not ?required? to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark?such as abandonment and genericide?are quite limited.

For example, Ars Technica's article about this dispute includes a large graphic with the Ubuntu logo. Will Canonical ?lose? this trademark if it doesn?t ?enforce? it against Ars Technica? Of course not. Ars Technica?s use is not even arguably infringement. And even if it was, failure to respond to every last act of infringement does not result in abandonment.

Food for though!

Leave a comment:

Right, but ... are we talking about "canonical" or "ubuntu" ? I am pretty sure that this is about the "ubuntu" trademark , not the "canonical" trademark. Your sentence is a perfect example of Strawman.

I made a correction of this guy saying McDonalds is not appearing on the front cover, do you know who?

Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?

So the correction was clearly to state that a reference can reference a trademark, like "I'm loving it" even is not spoken expressly.

(...)
So let's take the claims you said about this documentary:
- That's a parody obviously, which makes that Fix Ubuntu is a critic, obviously.
- you state: "I don't see (...) even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover" ". I'm not a native English speaker, but for me cover means both sides (the front side and the back side). If you look for the back side is shown: McDonalds logo four times: 2 times on the pack of fries, once on a McDonalds restaurant and once on the "coke glass". Also it reads clearly about McDonalds (with this typing). Even so, the two references from the front cover are still enough to not be necessarily the argument on your side, isn't it? You can't use the name of the product just because you don't use the name of the company, right? You can't use iPhone trademark (as non affiliated) and is not all right because you did not use the word Apple... but this seems to be your logic. If you miss the "I'm loving it" as being a direct reference to a McDonalds branding and the Supersize as being a McDonalds product, it seems you say: you're not selective of your proof but you're very selective at least in this specific proof on the other side.
(...)

If my understanding of straw man follows me well is that I would say that I would say that you were against posing Supersize as a trademark name, which you you didn't.

Are you trying to use strawmen against me, when you were the one starting with "no McDonalds logo"? Sleep tight

Leave a comment:

Right, but ... are we talking about "canonical" or "ubuntu" ? I am pretty sure that this is about the "ubuntu" trademark , not the "canonical" trademark. Your sentence is a perfect example of Strawman.

Given this, it was not closed and I don't know any legal lawsuit from McDonalds against "Supersize me" and certainly not on trademark grounds.

There isn't any lawsuit because , as i said several times, that movie was actually making a fair use of the mcdonals' name and trademarks. And as a matter of fact, i explained to YOU why the movie "Supersize me" is a good example of Nominative Fair Use. Yet, you insist on arguing with me on something you should instead be agreeing with me . So there you have strawman again plus trolling.

Why did you answer with another red herring? My accusation was that creationism (which it happen that I personally disagree with) was a red herring from your side. You answer that creationism is false but you didn't address the part of red herring, isn't it?

I was explaining to you why i do not care if the EFF lawyer is a lawyer. . I am not discussing with anybody if creationism is right or wrong . I am simply illustrating why invoking the position of a biased lawyer just because it is a lawyer as argument , constitutes a fallacy. Yet you insists on arguing about red hearing. So, you are trying to deviate the attention into another discussion that nobody is interested .

Mark here:https://plus.google.com/116812394236...ts/5jdibY5iR9b
This was a bit silly on our part, sorry. Our trademark guidelines specifically allow satire and critique ('sucks sites') and we should at most have asked him to state that his use of the logo was subject to those guidelines.

That's totally consistent with what i have been saying all the time. He only regrets sending the "toughest template " for the notice. Nothing else. Furthermore, in the very next paragraph he says:

We are obliged to have SOME agreement in place with anyone using the Ubuntu logo. Rules for nominative use are subjective and thus a policy and agreements are required if we want Ubuntu to remain a defensible mark. It's a pain but that's the system.

He is basically saying that the owner of fixubuntu.com should at least talk with Canonical first and ask for authorization and reach agreement . Do you even read? In fact, Canonical is a very friendly company regarding the use of their trademarks in the internet compared to any other company . The owner of fixubuntu don't have any excuse at all, his is just a pathetic whiner. This is just defamatory BS against Canonical.

And you seem to be totally lost .

Leave a comment:

(...)
That's matter of opinion if you believe that "supersize me" is not a parody, i have no seen the movie but the front cover looks like a parody to me besides the "documentary" label, while the back cover makes it look more like criticism .
Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?

"Supersize me" doesn't use McDonalds as Fix Ubuntu doesn't use Canonical, right? I think you would agree that Supersize is (or exactly was) a McDonalds product. And the gameplay "supersize" + me is the same as Ubuntu + Fix. Explain to me the difference, as for one I don't see it. Even more, McDonalds is certainly attacked both on the back cover and all over the documentary, is it certainly unscientific and is an oversimplification of what McDonalds is and what Supersize is also. Given this, it was not closed and I don't know any legal lawsuit from McDonalds against "Supersize me" and certainly not on trademark grounds.

As for now there was added a disclaimer, to make things clear, other than this, I don't think anyone got there and thought is an Ubuntu page, or affiliated, not anymore than "Boycott Novell" was a Novell affiliated site.

Well, creationists usually cite at least 900 scientist coming (...) . So, there you have, good luck with your biased EFF experts that are defending their own political stance and good luck your fallacious argument from authority .
Well, i do not belong to your church. Maybe there IS a tea party after all.

Why did you answer with another red herring? My accusation was that creationism (which it happen that I personally disagree with) was a red herring from your side. You answer that creationism is false but you didn't address the part of red herring, isn't it?

This was a bit silly on our part, sorry. Our trademark guidelines specifically allow satire and critique ('sucks sites') and we should at most have asked him to state that his use of the logo was subject to those guidelines.

So the content part was not the name but the Ubuntu logo. So it is clear to me that. The disclaimer could not be even necessary (at least from what Mark said), as it wasn't necessary in Supersize me, or in other documentaries or internet sources, or any place that uses it for parody, critic or any other form of free speech.

Leave a comment:

Obviously you didn't. You statements are just of context of Mark just said. And based on this you said: "Mark never accepted wrongdoing". Isn't it the base of your argument? And you said Mark was right, just the template was wrong.

That's only about what he actually said. And that's actually what he said. Go and read his posts and you'll find out that is what he is actually saying. How many times do i have to repeat this? I have already read it, and actually understood , the Canonical response. They are even accusing that media outlets of sensationalists, and i agree with that.

Anyway, the things are different if you look for the whole context

Of course, that's what i have been saying since the beginning .

in fact you are the only one here playing the innocent card for Mark, and no one seems to defend it. Creationists or evolutionists, various people with various legal expertize.

Maybe i am not one of those sheep who blindly follows the ochlocracy without thinking. No blatantly biased lawyers are credible , much less when they are blatantly wrong, this also demonstrates their bias

Certainly some things you stated (at least for the last argument) are obviously (emphasis mine) wrong:
- you stated that one thing is obviously a parody, even for me Supersize me is not a parody, compared with Fat Head which it is. Supersize me is a critical as Fix Ubuntu is. Anyway isn't it for you FixUbuntu not a critical site on Ubuntu and is made obvious by reading its content?

That's matter of opinion if you believe that "supersize me" is not a parody, i have no seen the movie but the front cover looks like a parody to me besides the "documentary" label, while the back cover makes it look more like criticism .

Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?

- you stated that Canonical did not misbehave, but almost every public outlet said that Canonical did it. Are all this dumb?

Yes , they are.

- you state "evolutionism" vs "creationism" in the idea that you live as a smart guy in a world of fanatics. Isn't it a red herring?

Well, creationists usually cite at least 900 scientist coming from prestigious universities who vocally support their ridiculous creationists "theories". But 900 scientist is not consensus against hundreds of thousands of unbiased scientists who disagree them. Still, i do not believe in creationism , and only because it is a simply ridiculous 'theory' . So, there you have, good luck with your biased EFF experts that are defending their own political stance and good luck your fallacious argument from authority .

Maybe I'm a guy that lives by a different standard, but all people around seem to be fairly on the same line. Isn't it you who seem to be a bit out of touch with reality?

Well, i do not belong to your church. Maybe there IS a tea party after all.

At last: your arguments will never go to a court, and I think what you say hopefully does not apply in a state of law. The reason is simply because courts should operate "beyond a reasonable doubt", and as you are here a tiny minority makes me think that (your arguments don't hold any water) is it very unlikely that attacking FixUbuntu (tm) in court would change anything, a jury will not be persuaded and the site will stay intact. Free speech allows sites like: Boycott Novell to be alive

There is no doubt that Ubuntu trademarks are private property. Canonical has a very, very good chance to win that hypothetical lawsuit .

As you can see, you are dry now.

Leave a comment:

I was the one who brought the screenshot , mentioned, explained and quoted the "nominative Fair Use" doctrine, no one else. I already explained why fixubuntu.com can't use that doctrine as an excuse . What else do you need?

How can i dodge anything if you are not pointing out to anything!? I have nothing to admit because you are not saying anything at all! The three points enumerated by the fair use simply do not match the way fixubuntu.com is using the ubuntu logo, none of them!. I am presenting the evidence and the law. All you have to do is to compare. using a trademarked logo to brand your own website is NOT fair use. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

Well, it seems that for you, is not reasonable to think that , the opinion of a lawyer representing the client or itself is a biased opinion towards the client or itself . Creationists can cite hundreds of scientists who claim that evolution is wrong. I guess that you are one of those who believe those creationists claims then.

Wow, that is impressive. You managed to write that much while somehow avoiding addressing even a single one of my points. It is pointless trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to actually respond to what others say.

Leave a comment:

I have already broken down and debunked every single claim and argument you are making there and much more from others. I could run in circles all day around you too, but i am bored of this.

Obviously you didn't. You statements are just of context of Mark just said. And based on this you said: "Mark never accepted wrongdoing". Isn't it the base of your argument? And you said Mark was right, just the template was wrong.

Anyway, the things are different if you look for the whole context: in fact you are the only one here playing the innocent card for Mark, and no one seems to defend it. Creationists or evolutionists, various people with various legal expertize.

Certainly some things you stated (at least for the last argument) are obviously (emphasis mine) wrong:
- you stated that one thing is obviously a parody, even for me Supersize me is not a parody, compared with Fat Head which it is. Supersize me is a critical as Fix Ubuntu is. Anyway isn't it for you FixUbuntu not a critical site on Ubuntu and is made obvious by reading its content?
- you stated that Canonical did not misbehave, but almost every public outlet said that Canonical did it. Are all this dumb?
- you state "evolutionism" vs "creationism" in the idea that you live as a smart guy in a world of fanatics. Isn't it a red herring?

Maybe I'm a guy that lives by a different standard, but all people around seem to be fairly on the same line. Isn't it you who seem to be a bit out of touch with reality?

At last: your arguments will never go to a court, and I think what you say hopefully does not apply in a state of law. The reason is simply because courts should operate "beyond a reasonable doubt", and as you are here a tiny minority makes me think that (your arguments don't hold any water) is it very unlikely that attacking FixUbuntu (tm) in court would change anything, a jury will not be persuaded and the site will stay intact. Free speech allows sites like: Boycott Novell to be alive